From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751283AbWHAQ5Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:57:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751236AbWHAQ5Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:57:16 -0400 Received: from 63-162-81-179.lisco.net ([63.162.81.179]:11708 "EHLO grunt.slaphack.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751283AbWHAQ5P (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:57:15 -0400 Message-ID: <44CF87E6.1050004@slaphack.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:57:10 -0500 From: David Masover User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Macintosh/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Horst H. von Brand" CC: Bernd Schubert , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Jan-Benedict Glaw , Clay Barnes , Rudy Zijlstra , Adrian Ulrich , ipso@snappymail.ca, reiser@namesys.com, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion References: <200608011428.k71ESIuv007094@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> In-Reply-To: <200608011428.k71ESIuv007094@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Bernd Schubert wrote: >> While filesystem speed is nice, it also would be great if reiser4.x would be >> very robust against any kind of hardware failures. > > Can't have both. Why not? I mean, other than TANSTAAFL, is there a technical reason for them being mutually exclusive? I suspect it's more "we haven't found a way yet..."